Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9164900" data-attributes="member: 996">True, but say it increased ten-fold, that's 90% of fans who have likely only known 5e, for up to 10 years, they're probably pretty accustomed to it. Grognards got comparably accustomed to 1e or BECMI or 2e (each had roughly a decade run), and they (OK, we <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> )&nbsp; mostly remain zealous about 'em, gobbling up retroclones and bemoaning what WotC has done to the franchise.So that we're looking at a 5e.2024 that will likely stray even less from 5e.2014 than 2e initially did from 1e, shouldn't be surprising. And, as much as some grogs may hate on 5e, it's not that different in the broadest strokes - HD, 9 levels of casting, Ask Your DM, and what we now euphamistically call the martial/caster gap - so if you ever hoped a class-balanced version of D&amp;D was coming, give it up.I remain unconvinced.&nbsp; I get the impression that there's a very human tendency, maybe it's confirmation bias, to project a desire for a given condition onto those in that condition, regardless of how they got there.I'm sure new players have traditionaly been told (wrongly in 3e &amp; 4e) to play a fighter as a simple training-wheels experience (3e Barbarian would have been better, 4e Archer Ranger) - by experienced players who are, just possibly being condescending.But, I suspect the players driving the popularity of the fighter are not choosing it for it's simplicity, nor for any aspect of it's mechanics, but for it's concept - thus the disconnect between most popular class (always, in every edition, even though it's changed radically from one to the next, mechanically), and class with strangely low approval ratings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9164900, member: 996"] True, but say it increased ten-fold, that's 90% of fans who have likely only known 5e, for up to 10 years, they're probably pretty accustomed to it. Grognards got comparably accustomed to 1e or BECMI or 2e (each had roughly a decade run), and they (OK, [I]we[/I] :rolleyes: ) mostly remain zealous about 'em, gobbling up retroclones and bemoaning what WotC has done to the franchise. So that we're looking at a 5e.2024 that will likely stray even less from 5e.2014 than 2e [I]initially [/I]did from 1e, shouldn't be surprising. And, as much as some grogs may hate on 5e, it's not that different in the broadest strokes - HD, 9 levels of casting, Ask Your DM, and what we now euphamistically call the martial/caster gap - so if you ever hoped a class-balanced version of D&D was coming, give it up. I remain unconvinced. I get the impression that there's a very human tendency, maybe it's confirmation bias, to project a desire for a given condition onto those in that condition, regardless of how they got there. I'm sure new players have traditionaly been told (wrongly in 3e & 4e) to play a fighter as a simple training-wheels experience (3e Barbarian would have been better, 4e Archer Ranger) - by experienced players who are, just possibly being condescending. But, I suspect the players driving the popularity of the fighter are not choosing it for it's simplicity, nor for any aspect of it's mechanics, but for it's concept - thus the disconnect between most popular class (always, in every edition, even though it's changed radically from one to the next, mechanically), and class with strangely low approval ratings. [/QUOTE]

Verification